Measure numbering: Volta with incomplete alternatives

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Measure numbering: Volta with incomplete alternatives

Sam Bivens
Hi all,

I'm typesetting a Beethoven bagatelle (119/4) where both alternative measures at the end of a volta are incomplete. If you look at the attached PNG, you'll see that the measure immediately following the second alternative is also incomplete (it's the start of the third system). LilyPond gives this half-measure it's own measure number, as shown in my attached MWE. I have two questions:
  1. Are there any sources in the notation literature that give a suggestion on how we should number these measures? Should the half-measure at the start of the third system get its own measure number, or should it be a continuation of the previous measure (in my Lily file, 2b)? My intuition suggests the latter.
  2. Are there cleaner ways of fixing this than my three commented-out lines?

(And a bonus question if anyone knows: why isn't this bagatelle written starting on beat 1?)

Thanks for any help anyone may offer!

Sam


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

b_119_4.png (407K) Download Attachment
measure_numbering_mwe.ly (847 bytes) Download Attachment
measure_numbering_mwe.pdf (49K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Measure numbering: Volta with incomplete alternatives

Mats Bengtsson-4


On 2018-06-20 22:59, Sam Bivens wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm typesetting a Beethoven bagatelle (119/4) where both alternative
> measures at the end of a volta are incomplete. If you look at the
> attached PNG, you'll see that the measure immediately following the
> second alternative is also incomplete (it's the start of the third
> system). LilyPond gives this half-measure it's own measure number, as
> shown in my attached MWE.

> I have two questions:
>
>  1. Are there any sources in the notation literature that give a
>     suggestion on how we should number these measures? Should the
>     half-measure at the start of the third system get its own measure
>     number, or should it be a continuation of the previous measure (in
>     my Lily file, 2b)? My intuition suggests the latter.
>
Yes, that's most common in printed music, as far as I can recall.
>
> 1.
>
>
>  2. Are there cleaner ways of fixing this than my three commented-out
>     lines?
>
The recent 2.19.x versions of Lilypond can handle these incomplete
alternatives correctly, without any additional \set Timing.xxx commands.
If you simply remove those commands from your file, the measure
numbering will be more standard, i.e. the continued half bar doesn't get
any extra bar number.
>
> (And a bonus question if anyone knows: why isn't this bagatelle
> written starting on beat 1?)
>
Well, isn't it a kind of Gavotte?

     /Mats
>
> Thanks for any help anyone may offer!
>
> Sam
>

--
=============================================
        Mats Bengtsson, Prof.
        Information Science and Engineering
        School of Electrical Engin. and Comp. Science
        Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
        SE-100 44  STOCKHOLM
        Sweden
        Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463
        Email: [hidden email]
        WWW: https://www.kth.se/profile/matben/
=============================================


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user